Towards Implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action in Law Schools: a Settler Harm Reduction Ap
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION’S CALLS TO ACTION IN LAW SCHOOLS: A SETTLER HARM REDUCTION APPROACH TO RACIAL STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INDIGENOUS LEGAL ORDERS IN CANADIAN LEGAL EDUCATION SCOTT J. FRANKS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO August 2020 © Scott J. Franks, 2020 Abstract Many Canadian law schools are in the process of implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Actions #28 and #50. Promising initiatives include mandatory courses, Indigenous cultural competency, and Indigenous law intensives. However, processes of social categorization and racialization subordinate Indigenous peoples and their legal orders in Canadian legal education. These processes present a barrier to the implementation of the Calls. To ethically and respectfully implement these Calls, faculty and administration must reduce racial stereotyping and prejudice against Indigenous peoples and Indigenous legal orders in legal education. I propose that social psychology on racial prejudice and stereotyping may offer non- Indigenous faculty and administration a familiar framework to reduce the harm caused by settler beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors to Indigenous students, professors, and staff, and to Indigenous legal orders. Although social psychology may offer a starting point for settler harm reduction, its application must remain critically oriented towards decolonization. ii Acknowledgments I have a lot of people to acknowledge. This thesis is very much a statement of who I am right now and how that sense of self has been shaped by others. Of course, I’ve made my own choices as to how I interpret those relationships, their impact on me, and what I should do. The direction of this thesis, its focus on interpersonal experiences and individual agency, is strongly influenced by my mother, Tiami Wheeler, and my grandmother, Doreen Rasch. I must also acknowledge the profound impact of other members of my family and my friends, who listened to me speak about my experiences in law school and shaped my thinking. Thank you, Craig Wheeler, Raven Wheeler (my little sister), Otto Ranalli (my “bosom friend”, in the words of Anne Shirley), my uncles Ed and Tim Franks and their families, my auntie Gloria Ratt and her daughter Diandra, my grandfather, Derek and Crystal Howat, Brad and Clare Schafer, Jarett Nelson, Brooks Arcand-Paul, Francine Merasty, Nicole Iaci, Alyssa Flaherty-Spence, Catriona Dooley, Jared Brown, Quvi Taylor, Kim Van der Woerd, Sam Tsuruda, Kylie Swift, Jessica Magonet, Katie Duke, Andrée Boisselle, Brian Slattery, Kent McNeil, Sonia Lawrence, Karen Drake, Renée Pelletier, Sara Mainville, Maggie Wente, Lori Mishibinijima, Benjamin Hognestad, Tamara Pearl, Madeleine Northcote, Humera Jabir, Andrea, Mark and Colleen Vogel, Sinéad Dearman, Kenji Tokawa, Zach D’Onofrio, Allison Grandish, Alicia Landry, Elena and Julia Ranalli, and Nick Grunow-Hårsta, for your support. There are probably more that I am forgetting. These individuals played an important role in how I worked through this thesis – as well as in support, friendship, and knowledge. Kinanāskōmitin to Jeffery Hewitt, my supervisor, and to Jennifer Nedelsky, a committee member who was my welcomed de facto co-supervisor. When I applied for the LLM, I knew exactly who I wanted to work with and why. At the time, I couldn’t imagine completing it with iii anyone else. Professors Hewitt and Nedelsky encouraged me in ways that are simply invaluable. They asked me to reflect on not only the content of this thesis, but also the experiences of various speakers and audiences. They also reminded me to honour my own voice, as a contribution to what came before and as a gift to others. I would also like to thank the funders for this thesis. I received the Canada Graduate Students Scholarship (Masters) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Viscount Bennett Fellowship from the Canadian Bar Association, the Harley D. Hallett graduate scholarship, and a grant from the Law Foundation of British Columbia. I also received graduate scholarships from York University. I am incredibly grateful for the support of the Canadian Bar Association and Law Foundation of BC; their support acknowledges the importance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. Also, thanks TOOL for releasing your discography on Spotify. iv Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 I. “We are all here to stay, but not in the same way” ............................................................... 24 II. Racial prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination against Indigenous students, faculty, staff, and Indigenous legal education in Canadian law schools ............................................................. 35 1. Social Categorisation and Racialization ........................................................................... 37 2. Stereotypes and Prejudice ................................................................................................. 42 a) Old-Fashioned and Modern Prejudice .......................................................................... 47 b) Aversive Racism ........................................................................................................... 52 c) Benevolent Prejudice .................................................................................................... 54 d) Effects of Stereotyping and Prejudice on Indigenous Students and Professors ............ 57 e) Social Identities: Intergroup Threat and Contact .......................................................... 64 f) Indigenous-Settler Incommensurabilities: Beyond Prejudice Reduction Theories ...... 72 g) Summary ....................................................................................................................... 73 III. Interventions for reducing anti-Indigenous stereotyping and prejudice in Canadian Law Schools .......................................................................................................................................... 75 i. Individual-level Processes ............................................................................................ 76 v ii. Intergroup-level Processes ............................................................................................ 83 iii. Collective Action Towards Social Change ............................................................... 91 1. Indigenous programming .................................................................................................. 96 a) Critical Indigenous Legal Education ............................................................................ 96 b) Indigenous Awareness Camps .................................................................................... 103 c) Clinical Legal Education............................................................................................. 108 d) Indigenous Cultural Competency ............................................................................... 111 e) Indigenous Law Degrees and Institutes ...................................................................... 113 f) Northern Law Schools ................................................................................................ 114 g) Preparatory Programming ........................................................................................... 117 h) Summary ..................................................................................................................... 118 2. Institutional Commitment ............................................................................................... 121 a) Representation and Facilities ...................................................................................... 122 b) Peer Support Groups ................................................................................................... 124 c) Inclusion of Elders and Community Relationships .................................................... 126 d) Financial Resources and Funding ............................................................................... 126 e) Hiring and Advancement ............................................................................................ 127 f) Admission and Advancement ..................................................................................... 129 g) Anti-Racism and Harassment ..................................................................................... 130 h) Decolonization Plans .................................................................................................. 131 vi IV. Evaluating the Implementation of Prejudice Reduction Interventions ........................... 132 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................